Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 are alternatives and may be discussed together.
European Parliament Elections Bill, 1993: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(2) Persons who are not normally resident in the State but who are citizens of the State shall be eligible to vote for representatives to the European Parliament subject to certain provisions contained in regulations to be made by the Minister for the Environment.".
This amendment is reasonably selfexplanatory. Many people living outside the State wish to vote in our elections. I understand that at present members of the diplomatic corps and of the Army serving overseas have voting rights. Where possible we should try to ensure that, with the introduction of proper regulations, voting rights will be extended to Irish people overseas. This is important as many people are anxious to have the right to exercise their franchise. I believe that we are the only country in the EC which does not have the kind of right I am seeking to have inserted by this amendment.
I support the amendment. I realise this matter was considered in some detail when it was discussed by the select committee. As far as I understand, there are 63,000 people from other countries resident here who can vote in the European Parliament elections and that is welcome. It is also welcome that people can stand in the member state in which they are resident if they are citizens of the European Union. However, if that was to be brought to its logical conclusion, our 630,000 people, who are throughout the EC should be able to vote. As the elections are at the same time there should not be a difficulty about this.
I take the Minister's point that it is intended to have a constitutional referendum on the overall problem. The Minister said it is intended to have a constitutional referendum on the issue. That is welcome and it should happen sooner rather than later. Nonetheless these amendments would improve the Bill. Our democracy should be all embracing. Citizens of this country who left it in the recent past should be entitled to vote if they want to.
The amendment proposes that Irish people living abroad should have the right to vote in a constituency at home. As I said on Second Stage we have given a commitment to hold a referendum to allow for emigrant voting, not just in European elections but in elections generally.
Irish citizens, no matter where they live in Europe, will be entitled to vote in these elections. They are not in the same position as in other elections. I am not aware of any argument by Irish emigrants for the right to vote in European elections. It is some time since I took part in discussions on this and some emigrants may have formed a new opinion on the matter but I am not aware of a case being made because under the Maastricht Treaty they can already vote for the European Parliament in the area in which they live.
It may be unusual for the Seanad to do what is suggested here because, if passed, the amendment would give amazing powers to the Minister. He could, without reference to the elected Parliament, make any type of regulation on votes for emigrants. If I was in Opposition I would strenuously oppose such a provision. It gives the Minister a wide power to act. I fully trust the Minister, naturally enough——
As we trust you, Minister.
——and I am delighted with the compliments of the Opposition and the trust they have in the Administration. However, it may not always be here. Therefore, from a number of viewpoints, the amendment is not acceptable. Rather than dividing the House on the issue I ask that it be withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 2, after line 32, to insert the following:
"(3) Candidates seeking election as representatives to the European Parliament and who, at the time of the election, are Members of either House of the Oireachtas shall, if elected to the European Parliament, cease to be a Member of either the European Parliament, or the Oireachtas, as the case may be, at the next following election for membership of the Houses of the Oireachtas.".
There is dissatisfaction with the dual mandate. It is not in the interests of the people that a representative in Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann is also a Member of the European Parliament. People involved in politics at national level find it difficult and onerous. To do two jobs while also travelling between the European Parliament and Ireland would be even more so.
There are some notable exceptions. Mr. John Hume has performed in a distinguished manner as a Member of both the House of Commons and the European Parliament. He succeeded in discharging his duties and performed creditably in both fora.
The position is somewhat different here and we would have reservations about the dual mandate. I read the debates in the Dáil and the Minister said he does not think it possible to legislate along the lines I suggest. We may have to leave this matter to the wisdom of the political parties and allow them to monitor the situation. Political parties should ensure that its members sit in one parliament at a time.
I do not think anyone can carry out duties as a full time politician in Europe and be a full time politician at home at the same time. The case of John Hume, cited in both Houses, is not comparable to the norm. He has a special role which he can fulfil in both parliaments. He is not in a normal position.
Currently two of our 15 MEPs are also Members of the Oireachtas; perhaps they are magicians. One is an Independent and the other a member of the Progressive Democrats. From my experience as a backbencher in Opposition, I do not know how anyone has time to be in Europe for one third or one half of the week. It is a full time job.
Whatever about the possibility, it is not desirable to legislate to say one cannot be a member of both bodies. The political parties and the electorate should decide the matter. The parties should make inhouse rules on the issue, if not the electorate will give a clear message to candidates holding dual mandates. At the beginning of our EC membership 13 of the 15 MEPs held dual mandates, which, as I said, has now been reduced to two.
The most important point is that a provision in the European legislation introduced on 20 September 1976 governing this matter states: "The office of representative in the assembly shall be compatible with membership of the parliament of a member state". If we introduced legislation which ran counter to European legislation I do not believe it would stand up in court. We are not proposing to do so but even if it were possible I would still argue against writing into legislation that the dual mandate was to be banned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
"3. Notwithstanding anything in any other legislation the Minister for the Environment shall appoint either Saturday or Sunday as the polling day at European elections.".
I compliment the Minister and his officials on the wording of the following sentence: "Assuming the normal practice is followed the elections in Ireland will take place on Thursday, 9 June 1994". If the Minister and his advisers had been writing the transcripts of the documents exchanged which were disclosed by Sir Patrick Mayhew, there would not have been 22 typing and typographical errors.
It is important that the elections are held on either Saturday or Sunday. I listened closely to Senators Quinn, Finneran and Gallagher on Sunday voting. Senator Gallagher expressed the viewpoint of some people in her constituency. There are a number of people with similar views in my constituency but there are far more in hers. Religious beliefs must be respected and therefore I would favour elections on a Saturday.
What about the Jews?
They are scarce in Laois-Offaly.
They must exercise strategic voting because there are three of them in Dáil Éireann. Nonetheless it is essential that the elections take place either on a Saturday or a Sunday. Many students are unable to get to their constituencies when elections take place in the middle of university and regional technical college examinations. If the election is held on a Thursday, a lot of them will not be able to vote.
I hope the Minister can ensure normal practice is not followed on this occasion and that the elections are held on either a Saturday or Sunday. This subject comes up at our branch meetings on a reasonably regular basis. The Minister is on record as preferring a weekend vote, so he should put his view into practice.
The question of whether there should be weekend voting is a finely balanced argument. The last Electoral Bill looked in great detail at the obstacles in the way of as full a turnout as possible. With improvements in technology, there are ways in which late registrations and some of the other obstacles against voting can be removed.
In the early part of this century, general elections took place when we were still with mother England, so the results would take between a week to ten days to arrive. That would certainly provide extra work for the sophologists and the commentators on radio and television, but I am not recommending it to the Minister. We would all be dead if we had to wait that long — it was bad enough last time. The question on how to get maximum voter turnout is not static. There are changing circumstances and we should keep looking at it.
I understood the Minister to say, in his Second Stage reply, that there was nothing in this legislation that would preclude voting on a Sunday. In the Presidential Election Bill voting on a Sunday is also permitted. I do not see the need for it to be enshrined in legislation, but I make a strong plea to the Minister to try it on this occasion.
The central issue is what day of the week would allow most people to vote. There are always reasons why some people cannot vote. Holding the election on a Sunday would allow most people to vote. One only has to stand by the motorway on a Saturday to see the number of buses going down the country from Dublin carrying students, civil servants and others who live in the city. Many of those people are registered to vote in the country. I think the Minister would accept that either a Saturday or Sunday would facilitate as many people as possible to participate in the democratic process.
I was impressed by what the Minister said. This should not be enshrined in legislation. The case has been strongly made on both sides. I am impressed by the Minister's comments and if an experiment is to be done, it should be in the coming year. I believe it would be found satisfactory.
I thank Members for their contributions to this debate. I have nothing new to add to what I have to say. Facilitating the maximum numbers of people to vote and the increased convenience is, I assume, the reason for the proposal for Sunday voting. There is no argument against that. The Minister has the power to do that, so we do not need legislation for it, unless the intention is to force him into that situation. That is an undesirable type of restriction on the Minister. People like students, who are away from home, can register to vote at their college. Those from the country who are living in Dublin probably should be registered where they normally live, rather than where they come from, a place they might only visit on weekends.
Many countries have compulsory voting. Maybe we should look at the possibility of making people who refuse to exercise their franchise providing a good reason for doing so.
The numbers will certainly fall in those circumstances.
In Australia, for example, one has to provide a medical certificate if one does not vote, otherwise there are severe penalties. I will refer the matter back to the Minister for the Environment and impress on him the strength of the arguments made on the Seanad in support of weekend voting, whether it is on a Saturday or Sunday. I will be adding my own support to that.
I put forward the amendment to make it compulsory under the legislation that the elections would be held on a Saturday or a Sunday. I will not put it to a vote, but I want to make it clear that there is a considerable body of opinion across the country that the elections should take place on either of the two days.
The Minister's point that students in Dublin, Cork or other cities should register and vote there is not favourable. Those from different parts of the country have their own affiliations and would be more interested in the results from their own constituencies than those in the Dublin area, where they would not have a personal affinity with the candidate. I hope that people will be encouraged to go back to their own areas to vote.
In regard to compulsory registration, Senator Dardis was correct in saying that it is one way of making sure that the numbers that are voting would decline.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 3.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
My question refers to the two lists. I take the Minister's point that this is not a co-option like a co-option to the county council. I see a practical problem here. Am I correct in saying that if a party has two candidates and one of them is elected, the other will be precluded?
Both of them can be on the ‘B' list as well.
That overcomes the problem. The Minister has answered the question. I am sorry for making the point about the ten days notice of notification for a replacement. The Minister is correct that it was amended to 20 days in the Bill. However, even 20 days is short.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 2.30 p.m. next Wednesday.